Last week I reviewed Scott Creighton’s new book, The Great Pyramid Hoax, and I’m sure many readers will find the discussion of my review on the Graham Hancock website message board to be both instructive and amusing. There, critics contend that I had no business reviewing the book because I am a “blogger” and lack the necessary advanced degrees to credibly evaluate whether Creighton, a Scottish engineer and AboveTopSecret.com message board moderator, was able to develop a coherent argument. It’s amusing that I supposedly need greater credentials than either Creighton or Graham Hancock possess to evaluate whether Creighton was able to meet the basic requirements of argumentation. Apparently it is unfair to apply the simple test of asking whether, if we take Creighton’s evidence at face value, it supports the conclusion he derives from it.

In lieu of a lengthier blog post today, however, I would like to direct you to the Archaeological Fantasies podcast No. 56, in which I discussed H. P. Lovecraft, ancient Egypt, and a host of other topics with Jeb Card and Sarah Head. We recorded the discussion a few weeks ago, and I think you’ll enjoy it. It even gives a few hints at the real-life book that seems to be the model for the Necronomicon. Let’s just say that King Surid and Nyarlathotep might have more in common than you think.

Well, you /are/ a card-carrying member of the "stinky footed bumpkin" club, aren't you?

I look forward to listening to the podcast.

Reply

Shane Sullivan

9/27/2016 12:51:12 pm

I'm gonna have to read A Colder War. I'd heard good things.

Reply

orang

9/27/2016 04:56:03 pm

Jason, I would like you to do a column where instead of exposing phonies, fanatics, liars, and dodo-brains, you pick a few fringe theories of the past that turned out to be real, such as Heinrich Schliemann and Troy, Buddha being a real person after it was thought that he was mythical, and so forth.

The historical existence of the Shakyamuni Buddha may be challenged, even though I do not. However, I highly recommend that you read the following book about the content of the Tipitaka, which may show you that the Shakyamuni Buddha existed in the world:

The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist texts: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/the-authenticity-of-the-early-buddhist-texts/

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/27/2016 09:15:00 pm

Mr Colavito

Your write in your review of Creighton's latest book:

"...even if we accepted all of Creighton’s evidence at face value, it would mostly suggest that Vyse’s team tried to make some markings easier to read by repainting them..."

Can you explain to me how your statement above can square with Creighton's transcription of Vyse's diary entry: "These were my marks from cartouche to inscribe over any plain, low trussing"?

If we are, as you suggest, to take Creighton's evidence (which I think would mean also his transcription's of Vyse's diary) at face value, then how can this transcription be anything other than an intent to place marks into the chamber? If we take Creighton's transcription "at face value" how could that statement in Vyse's diary be construed as meaning "...Vyse’s team tried to make some markings easier to read by repainting them..."?

If Creighton's reading of this is correct, then the language, in my opinion, says nothing about repairing something already there but rather seems to indicate something that is not there and which Vyse would like to place there.

If we take Creighton's evidence "at face value" then what other way is there of reading this particular piece of text other than it being indicative of a hoax being perpetrated in that chamber of the Great Pyramid? How can Creigton's transcription of this statement, taken "at face value" be, as you suggest, an indication of "repairing" marks that were already in that chamber?

The transcription is wrong. The wording, as you give it, is nonsensical. I covered that in my review. I am not obliged to pretend otherwise.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/27/2016 10:58:32 pm

Jason,

You write: "The transcription is wrong". Do you know that for certain, Jason, or are you simply guessing? Have you seen the original document first hand? You said yourself the image in Creighton's book was not particularly clear - so how can you possibly know for sure Creighton's "transcription is wrong"? Creightom has seen it first hand and, unless you have too, then I am sure Creighton will have a better idea of what it says than you do. I think you need to accept that.

However, as you say, "...if we accepted all of Creighton’s evidence at face value..." then your statement implies an acceptance of the transcription as presented by Creighton.

Which simply does not then square with your suggesting the marks in these chambers were merely repairs.

Furthermore, how can you possibly argue that the Khufu cartouche (which Creighton argues--with supporting evidence--was painted in situ), was possibly merely the subject of repairs by Vyse and Hill? The two are mutually exclusive. Certainly, according to what Creighton has said, there are SOME marks that are authentic but not, in his estimation, the cartouche of Khufu.

TheBigMike

9/27/2016 11:27:53 pm

Mr. Robertson,

The phrasing Jason used "...even if we accepted all of Creighton’s evidence at face value..." indicates, to me, that we have already established that we do not accept Creighton's evidence, but in a hypothetical situation in which we did accept that evidence, then the most likely conclusion is an attempt to repaint markings to make them easier to read. Indeed, Jason pointed out a great deal of evidence that allows us to reject Creighton's claims.

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 10:00:01 pm

Funny how “Peter Robertson” (via his proxy server in Glasgow) comes out with this flannel, when I’ve already explained in detail what’s wrong with Creighton’s aphasic “transcription” on a page he’s seen:

“These were my marks from cartouche to inscribe over any plain, low trussing.” Such a natural thing to say! About as convincing as the messages people hear when they listen to records played backwards.

No false modesty: I contend that my transcription is closer to what a literate human being on planet Earth might actually have written—and I don’t need to be right. All I need be is as warranted in my transcription as he is in his, to deny it the evidential weight he would have us give it. Note that I even agree with him on some of the words.

And “Peter”, as you should know, I have seen this first hand, so don’t try to BS me or anyone else here.

Weatherwax

9/27/2016 10:46:34 pm

The Archy Fantasies is already one of my regular listens. I've listened to this episode 3 times, and I'm still absorbing info from it.

Reply

Tom

9/28/2016 02:12:49 am

It is the standard practise of cranks and apologists to query the academic qualifications of their critics.
The knowledge of many of the current mysteries of the Pyramids seem to have totally escaped millenia of Egyptians, Greeks, Arabs, Ottomans, French, British etc; supposedly they did not have the academic qualifications to understand such profound secrets.
But really, how can anybody no matter how qualified, fairly evaluate "inspired" revelations arrived at by years of such dedicated research?

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 05:35:55 am

TheBigMike

By even making such a hypothetical allowance to Creighton’s argument serves only to demonstrate Colavito’s complete inability to grasp simple binary logic. What he is effectively trying to say is that if we accept Creighton’s argument that a number of these quarry marks (including the Khufu name) were painted IN SITU (that is Creighton’s argument), then this IN SITU painting of the marks, according to Colavito’s hypothetical, was merely undertaken by the ancient builders and that Vyse and his team simply came along in 1837 and repainted faint marks. So why would the builders paint IN SITU marks upside down, sideways etc?

You see the problem? It is a binary choice – in situ marks or quarry marks. Colavito cannot, on the one hand, hypothetically accept Creighton’s argument of in situ marks and then state those in situ marks could simply have been repainted by Vyse. They are mutually exclusive positions. This remark by Colavito, as I have said, serves only to demonstrate and underline his own inability to grasp simple binary logic. And if this is the dire level of logical thought Colavito commands then I fear not just for Creighton’s book but for any other author’s work he reviews where the content of the book may rely, in whole or in part, upon logical deduction.

Colavito then compounds the matter with his statement “The transcription is wrong.” Given that Colavito clearly hasn’t seen the original document and given that the extract printed in Creighton’s book is not of sufficient clarity to clearly make out certain words, what qualifies Colavito to definitively state “The transcription is wrong” without any qualifier? As far as I understand, Creighton HAS inspected the original document over a long period of time and has even had some hand writing experts assist him in its transcription. Can Colavito match that? No? Then why the absolute statement “The transcription is wrong”? He is in no position to be making such an absolute statement without first reviewing the primary source. This is nothing more than a blatant display of personal bias, pure and simple. It might be that he is simply playing to his gallery here, chiming with what many will want to hear but it is absolutely unforgivable in terms of dedicating oneself to the truth by conducting proper research BEFORE making such comments.

I suspect Colavito merely WISHES Creighton’s transcription to be wrong for he has precisely nothing to prove the transcription Creighton offers in his book actually IS wrong—merely his own BELIEF. And, in this instance, Colavito’s belief amounts to precisely nothing more than him demonstrating his own mainstream prejudice with regards to this particular corner of Egyptology.

And yet, we are expected to accept Jason Colavito as a serious, thoughtful and reliable reviewer.

I have seen better.

You write: “Indeed, Jason pointed out a great deal of evidence that allows us to reject Creighton's claims.”

Can you show me this “great deal of evidence” Colavito has presented in his review of Creighton’s book “that allows us to reject Creighton's claims.”?

"Peter," I noticed that you seem to be writing from the same location where Creighton lives. Would you care to share your own particular bias, not to mention how you know so much about a book that has yet to be published? I thank you though for confirming my point that readers of Creighton's last book will find nothing new here to make the purchase of it worth the money.

Arguments are not binary. There is no black and white, either-or. An attempt to create a binary where we must believe all of Creighton's conclusions or none of them is simplistic and illogical.

But, if you insist, let us use a syllogism:

Creighton's argument requires a secret stash of documents in order to prove how Vyse's team faked the quarry marks.

Creighton did not prove the existence of such secret documents, or how they could have been discovered and kept secret.

∴ Creighton did not prove his argument.

If you would like to argued that the transcription is correct, by all means post a high quality scan of the document. Surely a book publisher requires at least 300 dpi to print an image effectively. Then we might see how Creighton might have found within the image letters and words that the spacing and visible elements indicate do not appear, and how he determined that Vyse wrote in unnatural, ungrammatical word salad.

Reply

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 10:04:48 pm

Sorry, “Peter”, but your talking about logic is a LOL moment.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 07:30:18 am

“I noticed that you seem to be writing from the same location where Creighton lives.”

Well spotted, Jason. I live in the UK, along with 65 million others.

“Would you care to share your own particular bias, not to mention how you know so much about a book that has yet to be published?”

The only evidence I have commented upon is that which has already been published, Jason. (In a chapter of Creighton’s previous book, remember?)

“I thank you though for confirming my point that readers of Creighton's last book will find nothing new here to make the purchase of it worth the money.”

I find that a strange comment given that you of all people have stated that Creighton “takes a chapter from his previous 2015 book The Secret Chamber of Osiris and expands it to ten times its original size.” Indeed, there are pieces of evidence in your review of his latest work that present evidence that is not present in his previous book (which I have read) so your “nothing new here” remark is actually untrue.

”Arguments are not binary. There is no black and white, either-or. An attempt to create a binary where we must believe all of Creighton's conclusions or none of them is simplistic and illogical.”

Mr Colavito – the marks in those chambers were either painted onto the blocks at the quarry OR in situ. That is a binary choice. From what I have read in Creighton’s previous book, he presents evidence to support the in situ binary option. If you accept that in situ argument Creighton makes (even as a hypothetical) then you cannot then propose that Vyse and Hill later repainted faint marks To do so it to present a logically inconsistent argument.

”But, if you insist, let us use a syllogism:

Creighton's argument requires a secret stash of documents in order to prove how Vyse's team faked the quarry marks.

Creighton did not prove the existence of such secret documents, or how they could have been discovered and kept secret.”

Mr Colavito – that is a fallacious line of argumentation. You are assentially arguing that to prove someone has been shot we have to first find the shotgun. Absurd! You see – this is why I worry about your ability to logically appraise such material and to present a cogent and consistent argument.

”Creighton did not prove his argument.”

Which is what I said myself on your site here: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-scott-creightons-the-great-pyramid-hoax-part-two

Unlike you, however, I do think he has presented some reasonable evidence which raises questions that I think require more investigation to be definitively answered. Maybe there will be more in his new book?

If you would like to argued that the transcription is correct, by all means post a high quality scan of the document. Surely a book publisher requires at least 300 dpi to print an image effectively. Then we might see how Creighton might have found within the image letters and words that the spacing and visible elements indicate do not appear, and how he determined that Vyse wrote in unnatural, ungrammatical word salad.

Mr Colavito – the POINT here is that YOU, sans a hi res image of the page in question, declared “The inscription is wrong”. Making absolute statements such as that is not how proper research is conducted and you should know that. I suspect, however, you merely allowed your skeptic bias to cloud your judgement.

Well, the UK is a big place, but you are writing from much closer to Scott Creighton's home in Glasgow, Scotland, which is to say, you are located there.

Your argument is more than a little confusing, however. You write, "If you accept that in situ argument Creighton makes (even as a hypothetical) then you cannot then propose that Vyse and Hill later repainted faint marks To do so it to present a logically inconsistent argument." Far be it from me to point out another case where the argument isn't binary. If we are speaking hypothetically, one might just as well propose that the ancient Egyptians painted them in situ for reasons we could not fathom. (Maybe upside down hieroglyphs were a wacky fad for embittered workers, for all we know.) The point is that Creighton is so convinced of one possibility that he fails to consider the much vaster range of explanations that could equally fit the evidence (such as it is) that he marshals.

It is this failure of imagination that creates problems because at each stage, Creighton views everything through one lens and therefore fails to consider alternatives.

Even a low-quality version of the Vyse journal shows problems with orthography and spacing that undercut the transcription provided.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 09:27:16 am

“Well, the UK is a big place, but you are writing from much closer to Scott Creighton's home in Glasgow, Scotland, which is to say, you are located there.”

Jason, I wouldn’t place too much faith in IP tracking systems. For all you know I could be using a proxy server and my location then becomes anywhere in the UK, or indeed the world. I have to say though, I do find it rather amusing that you feel some need to try and track this particular communication with you.

”Your argument is more than a little confusing, however. You write, "If you accept that in situ argument Creighton makes (even as a hypothetical) then you cannot then propose that Vyse and Hill later repainted faint marks To do so it to present a logically inconsistent argument." Far be it from me to point out another case where the argument isn't binary. If we are speaking hypothetically, one might just as well propose that the ancient Egyptians painted them in situ for reasons we could not fathom. (Maybe upside down hieroglyphs were a wacky fad for embittered workers, for all we know.)”

And so now you enter into the realm of absurdum, Jason. It is the very fact that the marks are a jumbled assortment of orientations that permits Egyptologists to make the claim they were painted onto the blocks at the quarries in the first place and, consequently, must then be authentic. You now wish to rip up the logic that permits Egyptology to draw this conclusion because it now does not suit your argument here. Really? But this aside, it is not merely the orientation of the jumbled orientation of the marks that alludes to them having been painted in situ. I have seen Creighton present other evidence on his ATS Forum and elsewhere that permits us to conclude that they were painted in situ. Perhaps he has gathered all his material and placed it all together in one book?

“The point is that Creighton is so convinced of one possibility that he fails to consider the much vaster range of explanations that could equally fit the evidence (such as it is) that he marshals.”

That is not my understanding, Jason. Jason – they are either painted at the quarry in which case they are genuine or they are painted in situ in which case (your newly acquired rejection of Egyptological consensus along with your stretch into absurdum notwithstanding), they are fraudulent. Indeed, even in his previous book Creighton actually acknowledges that some of the marks are genuine. From what I have read of his work in that book and elsewhere, he simply desires that proper science is done to establish which are genuine ancient Egyptian and which, if any, are not.

”It is this failure of imagination that creates problems because at each stage, Creighton views everything through one lens and therefore fails to consider alternatives.”

Creighton works from the assumptions of Egyptology i.e. that the marks were painted at the quarries i.e. NOT in situ. What would you rather he did? With the evidence he has uncovered it seems to me that this assumption by Egyptology may well be erroneous and that the marks were painted in situ. Placing absurdum aside, I can see no logical or reasonable answer as to why the builders would place them onto the blocks in the jumbled manner they appear if they were painted in situ. That you wish to leap into the realm of absurdum is your choice but I rather doubt very many will join you there.

”Even a low-quality version of the Vyse journal shows problems with orthography and spacing that undercut the transcription provided.”

So now you shift the goalposts. The passage wasn’t clear enough and now it is. Do make your mind up Jason.

You misunderstand me, "Peter." You are suggesting that I am making an argument in favor of the authenticity of the quarry marks. I am not advocating any particular position but instead am evaluating the claimant's argument. I am raising concerns with Creighton's claims. In argumentation, the claimant has the burden of proof and must overcome presumption. My only point is that Creighton has not overcome presumption and has not met the burden of proof. Therefore, his argument is not conclusive.

I did not "rip up" consensus in any sense; to note that there are a variety of potential explanations, ranging from the probable to the possible to the improbable does not argue in favor of any of them. It only shows that Creighton's arguments are limited and limiting because they fail to account for alternatives, if only to dismiss them.

You seem to want to litigate the age of the quarry marks, which I of course cannot do since I am not in Egypt, have never viewed said quarry marks in person, and have not performed any scientific tests on them. I am reviewing an argument as presented in a book that you pretend not to have read. I found the argument unconvincing, its claims speculative, and its evidence lacking. It is a conspiracy theory stripped of cultural context, resting on assumptions that cannot be proved. If you disagree, you are welcome to present proof otherwise based on facts rather than attempts to force me into making a counterargument so you can crow about a false dichotomy.

This does not change the glaring holes in the argument Creighton presents. To take just one of Creighton's many claims, that Vyse had discovered a secret set of documents from which he had the fake inscriptions copied:

1. When and how did Col. Vyse discover the "secret" documents whose characters were necessary to complete the forgery? What day did it occur? Where was Vyse?

2. What became of these "secret" documents?

3. Why did Col. Vyse neglect to report them, even in his journal, while somehow choosing to report his "instructions" to commit fraud based on the documents he neglected to mention?

I understand that Creighton has a years-long investment in this conspiracy theory, and perhaps that is what has blinded him to the difference between facts and inferences, and between a claim and a critique.

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 10:16:00 pm

Oh, so, you live in the UK. Scotland was in the UK, last time I looked. (I wonder how you feel about this.) Lanarkshire was in Scotland. Glasgow was in Lanarkshire.

Funny how many of Creighton’s supporters turn out to have proxy servers in Glasgow.

Calling time on your BS, “Peter”. Thanks for confirming that you have seen the page where I explain in detail what’s wrong with Creighton’s glossolalic “transcription” (now on this page also).

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 12:17:53 pm

“You misunderstand me, "Peter."

Since we’re on first name terms, you can call me “Pete”, “Jason”.

“You are suggesting that I am making an argument in favor of the authenticity of the quarry marks. I am not advocating any particular position but instead am evaluating the claimant's argument. I am raising concerns with Creighton's claims.”

Well, you are not doing it very well. See my comments here: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-scott-creightons-the-great-pyramid-hoax-part-two

“In argumentation, the claimant has the burden of proof and must overcome presumption. My only point is that Creighton has not overcome presumption and has not met the burden of proof. Therefore, his argument is not conclusive.”

Precisely. So just when exactly can we expect Egyptology to present the scientific proof that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, their claim that the marks are authentic? Creighton is simply presenting evidence which indicate a number of holes in the claims of Egyptology who made the initial claim of authenticity. It is not for Creighton to prove the marks are fraudulent but rather for Egyptology, since they are the ones claiming the marks are genuine, to prove their own claim. When can we expect to see that?

“I did not "rip up" consensus in any sense; to note that there are a variety of potential explanations, ranging from the probable to the possible to the improbable does not argue in favor of any of them. It only shows that Creighton's arguments are limited and limiting because they fail to account for alternatives, if only to dismiss them.”

Jason – oranges might become weightless tomorrow and float in the air but it is not likely to happen. Let us deal in probabilities here rather than the ludicrous possibilities you now want to entertain. You are trying to argue that the builders may have had some wacky reason for painting the marks in situ with a variety of orientations. If that is the case then you will doubtless be able to present other ancient Egyptian writing where this wacky practice also held sway. Support your contention Jason – let’s see the supportive evidence of your claim?

”You seem to want to litigate the age of the quarry marks, which I of course cannot do since I am not in Egypt, have never viewed said quarry marks in person, and have not performed any scientific tests on them. I am reviewing an argument as presented in a book that you pretend not to have read.

“pretend not to have read”? I fear you are now really losing it here, Jason. I have told you—I have read Creighton’s previous (fairly lengthy) chapter on this subject in his previous book and material he has written elsewhere online—and what you have written in your review of his much expanded offering.

“I found the argument unconvincing, its claims speculative, and its evidence lacking.”

As a book reviewer and critic you have a responsibility to your readership. You are of course entitled to your opinion. What you are NOT entitled to do is to present untruths in your reviews—which you have done (see below). Your readership deserve better than that.

Reply

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 10:20:13 pm

As a writer of ostensible nonfiction, Creighton has a responsibility to his readership. He has repeatedly failed to fulfil that responsibility.

Reply

David Bradbury

9/30/2016 03:41:38 am

Hello everybody. At this point, I'd like to add a bit of anarchy to the proceedings.
Humphries Brewer did play a significant role in the preliminary work for the Chain Bridge between Buda and Pest. First point to note, of course, is that the "Vienna" reference in Allen's notes ascribes the work to the wrong city, but an article about the Box Tunnel in the Pesther Tageblatt, 9 Sep 1841, naming Messrs Burge, Brewer and Lewis as contractors for that work, has a footnote stating that Brewer's son Humphries Brewer has, from the beginning of the Chain Bridge project, been Burge's agent in Buda (an advert for a Hungarian railway project in Herapath's Journal and Railway Magazine, 14 Jun 1845, confirms that T. Clark Esq. was the engineer, and Geo. Burge Esq. the contractor, for "the great bridge at Pesth across the Danube".)
Brewer returned to England well before completion of the bridge (possibly replaced as early as 1842 by the well-known Adam Clark). Of equal interest is another article in the Cheltenham Chronicle and Gloucestershire Advertiser, 5 Apr 1849: At Gloucester nisi prius court, Mr Tiddy, builder of Bristol, sued Humphries Brewer, "railway contractor" for the recovery of £200 he had lent to Brewer on an I.O.U. and "the jury found a verdict for plaintiff with common costs".
As we already knew, later in 1849, shortly after the birth of his daughter Mary, Brewer emigrated to the USA. As a business entrepreneur in America, he appears to have talked up his part in operations like the Chain Bridge (and the Thames Tunnel, with which he could only possibly have been involved for a short time, after the 1834 revival of the part-completed project).
I think it is very possible that 20-year-old Humphries Brewer was in Egypt in 1837, and that, as a young civil engineer with a family background in quarrying, he visited the Pyramids and saw the Vyse excavation. But it's most likely that he had no formal connection with the work at all.

Martin Stower

9/30/2016 07:15:41 am

Hello David.

Now you’ve gone and told the clown!

Yes, Humphries Brewer was involved in the preliminary work at Buda-Pest. He was there (as you say) as agent for the contractor George Burge. Doubtless it was through Box Tunnel that the connection was made, a possibility I identified in advance:

You will note that all of this was vehemently opposed by one Scott Creighton.

Burge was contractor for the coffer dams. Humphries Brewer was not replaced by Adam Clark, who was Resident Engineer, working for William Tierney Clark (no relation).

There is more, but not for posting.

David Bradbury

9/30/2016 08:57:26 am

More from my end:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qIZpAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA2-PA36&dq=%22george+burge%22+%22pesth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicxOjCkbfPAhXmAsAKHYXZCCUQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=%22george%20burge%22%20%22pesth%22&f=false

I wonder if young Humphries gave the impression in Pest that Burge was contractor for the whole bridge project, not just the coffer-dams? Certainly, that's what the Tageblatt article implies by omission.

Martin Stower

9/30/2016 10:32:22 am

Not sure about the impression Humphries gave in Pest. Certainly there was some misapprehension in the formation of the family tradition. At least two of his children got the impression that he was responsible for the entire project, but the claim made for him (in print) during his lifetime was that he was an “assistant engineer” on the project: vague enough to fit and not making any grandiose claim. I think it most likely that he told his children the story of the bridge, including the grand foundation ceremony in 1842 (within one of the coffer dams which he had helped to build) and the children understood it as children will.

David Bradbury

10/1/2016 05:10:02 am

Off at a slight tangent- do you know anything about the various Consular Court cases from Cairo involving Henry Raven (and in one instance also John R. Hill) filed under FO 841/ 5 & 6 in the National Archives?

Martin Stower

10/1/2016 07:24:03 am

Consular Court cases: the short answer is yes, but again not for posting . . .

David Bradbury

10/1/2016 09:08:26 am

Fair enough. From contemporary news reports they seem to be interesting blokes.

Martin Stower

10/1/2016 07:02:10 pm

After Vyse, Hill and Raven were busy setting up a transit business. Much of what there is about them concerns this.

What Hill started was carried on by Samuel Shepheard and is the real origin of Shepheard’s Hotel.

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 12:19:00 pm

“It is a conspiracy theory stripped of cultural context, resting on assumptions that cannot be proved.”

Well, from what I have read of Creighton’s work and from elsewhere, he offers more evidence in support of fraudulent activity of those marks than Egyptologists have in support of their authenticity. If you can present anything that might prove or otherwise support their authenticity, I’d be happy to see it.

“If you disagree, you are welcome to present proof otherwise based on facts rather than attempts to force me into making a counterargument so you can crow about a false dichotomy.”

Merely pointing out your logical fallacies.

”This does not change the glaring holes in the argument Creighton presents. To take just one of Creighton's many claims, that Vyse had discovered a secret set of documents from which he had the fake inscriptions copied:

1. When and how did Col. Vyse discover the "secret" documents whose characters were necessary to complete the forgery? What day did it occur? Where was Vyse?

2. What became of these "secret" documents?

3. Why did Col. Vyse neglect to report them, even in his journal, while somehow choosing to report his "instructions" to commit fraud based on the documents he neglected to mention?”

As I said to you before, you do not need the actual shotgun to know when someone has been shot. Furthermore, from a quick skim of articles on your site that concern the Great Pyramid, it is clear that you accept the structure as having been built as the tomb of Khufu. In the absence of primary evidence (i.e. the mummy of Khufu entombed within the GP), on what basis did you come to that conclusion? Or do you merely accept the contention based on circumstantial evidence? If so, then you are demanding levels of evidence from Creighton that you do not demand of Egyptology. Any fair and reasonable reviewer would demand the same from both – you clearly do not. Which makes your review entirely biased. Why then should anyone with an open mind trust what you have to say (your reviews) if you are so evidently biased on one side of this debate?

Ammusingly, trawling through your site, I came across this little exchange:

“Greg Reeder wrote: Jason,

Thanks for reviewing this book by Scott Creighton. I have not seen it as yet, though I have been following his posting on other forums. I wish you had delved into Scott's "Vyse forgery" claims with a little more detail, but I enjoyed the information you provide on his "slipshod historiography." Good work.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 12:20:15 pm

“Jason responds: … if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this: (a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts, and (b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth.

Well Jason, you seem to have changed your tune since you wrote that review of this chapter in Creighton’s previous book for now you present a whole raft of evidence from that previous chapter. Why did you claim that the evidence in that chapter amounted only to the two points above when, from my own reading of it and from your latest review of that chapter, there is so much more evidence present there? Were you misinforming your readership then or are you misinforming them now? Or both? You also claim now that there is “nothing new” in Creighton’s new book and yet go on to list several new pieces of evidence in your latest review that were not even in the chapter in his first book. Are you misleading your readership again?

As an honest, fair and responsible critic, Jason, you are not doing too well.

”I understand that Creighton has a years-long investment in this conspiracy theory, and perhaps that is what has blinded him to the difference between facts and inferences, and between a claim and a critique.”

A critic spreading untruths (see above) is not a critic but something else altogether. I'll leave you to work it out.

Reply

Only Me

9/28/2016 01:01:29 pm

There's one way Creighton can both end the debate and prove he was right all along: turn over the secret documents that allegedly prove Vyse committed a hoax.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 03:28:52 pm

Not quite sure what you mean here by "secret documents" that Creighton should "turn over". If you mean Vyse's diary then this is already available in the public domain at a library in England. As far as I am aware, anyone can request to view it.

Only Me

9/28/2016 03:48:41 pm

"Creighton argues that Vyse could have copied Khufu’s cartouches from Ippolito Rosellini’s 1832 book I Monumenti Dell’Egitto e Della Nubia, that he could have recognized the cartouches reading 'Khufu' and 'Khnum-Khuf' (another of Khufu’s names) as referring to the same man, and therefore would have used both in fabricating the inscriptions, and that he also unknowing copied a third name of Khufu that would not be identified until long after simply because he was using 'a cache of authentic, old hieratic texts (perhaps painted onto stone or written with ink on papyrus) somewhere outside the Great Pyramid'"

Those documents, the "authentic, old hieratic texts". It is not enough to claim Vyse copied from Ippolito Rosellini, Creighton needs to reveal those hieratic texts if he has them.

Weatherwax

9/28/2016 01:39:11 pm

" the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth."

Can you please throw the proof that the lab is covering up the truth into the envelope with the secret documents? We'll review them all together.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 03:33:36 pm

Not sure what you mean by "secret documents"? If you mean Vyse's diary then this is already available in the public domain at a library in England. As far as I am aware, anyone can request to view it.

I think it would be great for us to reach a point where we could review ALL the evidence on either side. Egyptology their evidence to support authenticity and Creighton his evidence to support his claimed hoax. Be interesting viewing for sure.

If you are going to be pedantic, the remainder of the so-called "evidence" is speculation, not facts. Similarly, the "new" evidence in the book is again primarily speculation and inference rather than verifiable fact.

You use the metaphor of a gunshot implying the existence of a gun. But here we have the opposite: Creighton begins with what he admits to be a false report of a gunshot (Zecharia Sitchin) and from this deduces both a victim and another gun to fire the fatal bullet because he is so sure of the gunman.

Ultimately, the argument rests on (a) whether the markings can be scientifically shown to be modern in age and (b) whether it was possible for Vyse's men to have faked them in 1837. Since (a) is not open to Creighton, he rests his case on (b) and does so through the assumption that Vyse had access to secret documents that provide the hieroglyphs he could not otherwise have known in 1837. This is not evidence but speculation, and it is only because of the false report of a gunshot that he is casting about for a missing gun.

Without the documents, the argument can be nothing more than speculation, speculation that does not, in my estimation, rise to the level of suggestive, much less circumstantial.

You are free to think otherwise, but with nothing more than conspiracy theories, hearsay from 117 years after the fact, and ambiguous notes to work with, the case won't get stronger than that. None of this precludes the possibility that Creighton is right, but it does mean that he has not provided a solid reason to think he is.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 04:35:35 pm

Jason--sincerely.

You really need to take some time out here and reflect--really reflect--upon your contribution to this debate.

You have set yourself up as a reviewer of works of ancient history. But from reading many of your reviews and from our discussion here, it seems to me that you simply cannot set aside your own bias and review any controversial works dispassionately. You are simply not doing that and THAT, Jason - THAT is what your readership here (and beyond) expect and deserve of you.

They do not want you to misinform them by making completely untrue claims which, in your reviews of Creighton's work, is exactly what you did and it is right there in black and white on your own blog for anyone to see. There is no escaping that.

Such actions do not inspire confidence, Jason. None at all. From what I have seen here, I think it is fair to say that your skpetic bias also clouds your judgement in a number of different ways, demanding of Creighton a level of proof that you do not equally demand of Egyptology and bringng you to make conclusions which you simply cannot substantiate. You simply cannot DO that, Jason.

I honestly think here, Jason, that you actually owe your readership here an apology; an apology for misleading them. You told blatant untruths about Creighton's last book and, as such, your readership can only then wonder what untruths you may be telling now in your review of Creighton's latest work.

I really think you ought to reflect upon that, Jason and attempt to redeem yourself from your shameful behaviour and try and improve how you convey your work. I think you can probably start by offering an open letter apologising to Mr Creighton for the shameful manner in which you thoroughly misrepresented the Vyse chapter in his last book.

After that it is up to you.

I wish you well.

PS - As Creighton has said (somewhere): "Sitchin is Soooo 20th Century." Time, Jason, for you to catch up and move your argument forward to the 21st century.

2. I am not, and have no reason to be, "dispassionate." As Charles Darwin said, every observation must be for or against some position to be of any value. Like any good scientist, my first instinct is to ask "why is this wrong?" That is valuable because it helps to strengthen arguments by pointing out weaknesses. Would you ask Scott Creighton to be "dispassionate" instead of a zealous advocate of crackpot ideas about pre-Flood pyramids?

3. My description of Creighton's work is not "completely untrue." You may disagree with my evaluation all you want, and even argue that I am wrong in how I have evaluated it or which parts I considered important enough to discuss, but Creighton made specific claims, which I reported from his written statements.

You seem to consider discussion to be a kind of spaghetti cannon aimed at the wall. You pirouette from arguing that Creighton is correct to arguing that I am somehow required to give Creighton the benefit of every doubt to arguing that I must apologize for not providing readers with a full list of his ever claim, no matter how spurious they seem to me. You do not want me to be a critic but a stenographer, and your goal is to delegitimize the very act of criticism by equating evaluation with unfairness. Funny how that doesn't apply to authors like Creighton, who spin conspiracies from hyperbolic critiques of Col. Vyse's printed and unpublished works.

You can tell Creighton that he is welcome to present his evidence for the public to evaluate, and I invite him to present his evidence online for everyone to see, but this means that there will be people who will disagree with him.

Sitchin is so last century? Is this the tone taken in the book? That may cause some problems, seeing as how Scott’s publishers are Sitchin’s publishers. Will they go for one of their authors running down another? Let’s just wait and see!

If Sitchin is so last century, it’s Creighton who has the problem. He’s the one who remains fixated on Sitchin’s silly forgery fantasy.

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 10:27:27 pm

A writer spreading untruths is not a writer, but something else entirely.

I’ll leave you to work that one out.

Reply

Day Late and Dollar Short

9/28/2016 01:16:09 pm

I listened to the Archy Fantasies podcast this morning. Great stuff. Keep up the good work.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/28/2016 05:37:20 pm

@ Jason

"3. My description of Creighton's work is not "completely untrue."

I didn't say that, Jason. I said that you made comments regarding Creighton's last book that were completely untrue.

Let me remind you how you responded to Greg Reeder (one of your readers) when asked what evidence Creighton presented in his last book about the Vyse forgery. You said this:

" … if you'd like to know his evidence, it is this: (a) Vyse is a bad person whom no one liked and who committed fraud in other contexts, and (b) the German fringe people who scraped part of the red paint off of the relieving chambers last year claim that carbon dating found that the paint was only 200 years old, but the lab they said did the test refused to confirm their claim. Therefore, the name of Khufu is a fake and everyone is covering up the truth."

Remember?

Only TWO points of evidence you cite there, Jason. I have read that chapter and what I read there bears absolutely no likeness to how you described it to Mr Reeder. No mention at all from you in your review there of Vyse's diary entry of 16th June. No mention of the contradictions presented by Mr Hill's drawings which Creighton presented in that chapter. Nothing.

You gave your readership the impression, Jason, that what YOU said (your points 'a' and 'b' above) was the totality of Creighton's evidence to see in that chapter. And yet, in your latest review of this apparently identical chapter in Creighton's latest offering, you now list a whole raft of evidence from that chapter that you didn't list before. Why not?

So, Jason, in you first review of Creighton's original single chapter in his previous book, you presented a blatant UNTRUTH when asked by one of your readers, Greg Reeder, what evidence Creighton had presented of the Vyse forgery in that book. And you ought to apologise to your readership for so doing.

Stop digging and just apologise man.

Reply

An Over-Educated Grunt

9/28/2016 06:12:34 pm

You're demanding a blog author apologize for his opinion on his own page because he "owes it" to his readers? Why? Please, demonstrate this obligation, that everything posted online in a forum like this must satisfy your standards.

I've followed this entire thing today and I'll tell you, as a self-contained debate, you have failed to persuade. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Reply

Only Me

9/28/2016 06:46:36 pm

Personally, I've been greatly amused by Pete's staunch defense of pure speculation while demanding evidence from Egyptologists and Jason.

"I think it would be great for us to reach a point where we could review ALL the evidence on either side."

Well, one side has made its evidence available. We're still waiting on Creighton.

TheBigMike

9/28/2016 07:02:04 pm

I will be speaking as a regular reader of Jason's blog. I, for one, do not expect an apology from Jason on this point, nor would I accept such an apology if it were made since in my estimation Jason has done nothing that he needs to apologize for. I do not believe that because Jason chose to use only two specific points to respond to a reader that those are the ONLY two points that he COULD have made and that he, therefore, lied when he said that here was "nothing new." As far as I can determine, he simply did not feel the need to write an entirely new article in the comments section outlining every point when he was simply providing clarification on a limited number of points.
I find it mildly interesting that you have resorted to attempting to use rhetoric as your primary form of argument. In my opinion, you have failed present a coherent and cohesive argument and, it seems, you have now resorted to trying to shame Jason into acquiescing to your viewpoint. That has never gone well for anyone on this blog and, I suspect, never will.

In response to a question in the comments to a blog post, I summarized what I considered to be the two overarching reasons that he went in search of reasons to argue for a fraud. The rest of it, I judged, were sub-points supporting one or the other major reason. (For example, all of the speculation about HOW Vyse's team faked the marks derives from the overarching allegation that Vyse is a bad guy who routinely committed fraud.) As you note, I don't see any reason to apologize for offering my judgment of what was important in the argument. If someone else thinks other claims were more important, he's welcome to share his judgment.

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 08:57:12 pm

When may we expect Scott Creighton to apologise for the shoddy and mendacious rubbish he’s had the gall to charge money for?

Reply

nomuse

9/29/2016 01:03:18 am

Hear, hear. To try to chase down every single possible supportive interpretation would be to perform a Gish Gallop on oneself.

It never matters which argument a conspiracy writer leads with, which one his supporters like most, or which one you think is strongest. Pick one. Pick two. Pick twenty. And you'll still get chastised for cowardly avoiding "the one that really matters."

Lather, rinse and repeat.

Reply

Tom

9/29/2016 01:27:51 am

We can all take comfort in the certainty that in a year or two "The Great Pyramid Hoax" will be found only with other fantasies on the bargains shelves of charity shops.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/29/2016 03:42:30 am

"nothing new" in Creighton's latest book. That is what you said.

That statement is evidently UNTRUE Jason. For the proof of that read your own review of his latest book and compare with your review of his previous one.

That is what you are reduced to? I said that there was nothing new because Creighton's major arguments and major lines of evidence remain unchanged. Yes, he provides additional detail, but since such details do not impact the major claims or lines of evidence, I felt (and feel) that there is nothing new added to Creighton's argument. If your argument is that you feel that such minor additions have somehow changed the argument, then you concede that it wasn't a very good argument the first time around.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/29/2016 11:11:58 am

Weasel words, Jason.

In your 'review' of Creighton's latest book you presented items of evidence you had not presented as evidence previously from that chapter in Creighton's first book and also new items presumably from elsewhere in his new book (because I do not recall reading anything about those in the chapter of the previous book).

I have read Creighton's previous book, including the Vyse forgery chapter. My own impression is that you very carefully cherry-picked tangential issues to Creighton's main argument and implied to Greg Reeder in your response to his question that what you had listed was the totality of the evidence in that book. You gave no indication that there was any other evidence in that book. That is a lie by omission, Jason. And well you know. And still you persist.

No one is saying you had to review every single piece of evidence presented but what you presented was NOT the main items of evidence in Creighton's book as well you know. You chose what you did simply tio portray Creighton's argument in as poor a light as you possibly could.

Because you are biased, Jason. A biased historical hack.

If you cannot give your readership an honest appraisal of the facts presented in a book but instead feel the need to omit important points from a book in favour of lesser tangential points purely as a means to paint a poor picture, then that is unfair to the author and, more importantly, to your own readership here and you really should be looking at doing something else with your time.

A serious reviewer of books such as Creighton's you most certainly are not.

Since Creighton is not a serious investigator of Egyptian history, then you must agree that it is an even match. Back in 2014, I judged that his claims about Vyse weren't really relevant to the main argument of his book and didn't see much point in discussing them. When asked about them, I gave my judgment of the main argument, which does indeed boil down to "Vyse was a bad guy, so I suspect everything he did is a conspiracy or a fraud." The trouble is that you suspect me of cherry-picking arguments whereas Creighton is oblivious to context, and often outright misinformed about the social, cultural, and archaeological context of the era. He is the one offering motivated reasoning to support his fantasia derived (by his own admission) from medieval Arabic pyramid legends. But if you wish me to entertain such arguments, then you run into an inescapable problem: The Arabs were quite clear, as al-Maqrizi, al-Suyuti, and many others reported, that al-Ma'mun found and removed a mummy from the King's Chamber, and the Arabs also passed on the highly distorted legend that it belonged to Surid, whose name most likely derives from Suphis, Manetho's name for Khufu, whom Manetho named as the builder of the Great Pyramid and the author of the "sacred book" of wisdom. So, even if Vyse did fake the quarry marks, the very texts Creighton uses to develop his antediluvian pyramid, if read as literally as Creighton himself wishes, prove Khufu built the pyramid to a greater degree of proof than Creighton's evidence of Vyse's forgery.

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 09:42:06 pm

When will Scott Creighton give his readership an honest appraisal of the evidence and not bamboozle them by omitting important facts?

An Over-Educated Grunt

9/29/2016 10:01:24 am

So far what you've demanded is that "Egyptologists" as a class refute an unproven, century-old allegation of fraud. To use your analogy you certainly don't need the gun to prove someone was shot but you do need a gunshot wound. You have yet to do more than raise the possibility that the wounds exist (legally known as habeas corpus, loosely translated as "there is a body"). Certainly you haven't shown that there is more than hearsay or speculation.

Reply

Martin Stower

9/29/2016 08:47:42 pm

I wondered where “Peter Robertson” had gone.

I must say, “Peter”, that you could scarcely be more invested in Scott Creighton’s “work” if you were Scott Creighton yourself.

You have much to say in defence of a book which (presumably) you haven’t read. Caution is suggested: you are tending to confirm what Jason has said about the repetition and recycling in this book—its having “nothing new to say to readers of his earlier book”.

You have much in common with someone who posts on GHMB. I suggest you look him up!

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/30/2016 12:22:41 am

Well, Jason. So far nothing. About two days now since I asked you to present supportive evidence of your wacky 'third option' (which you berate Creighton for not considering) of the ancient Egyptians writing upside down and sideways. I hope I do not have to wait too much longer.

But anyway, it got me thinking - why would you even contemplate such a ridiculous notion that the builders could have placed these marks IN SITU upside down, sideways etc? Why have you come to even consider that as a possibility? Indeed, that you can even consider this as a 'third option' actually implies and underlying acceptance of Creighton's IN SITU argument. This is to say that, by the very act of putting forward your 'third option', implies an acceptance Creighton's IN SITU premise for these marks (except you, quite literally, turn the marks on their head by suggesting the wacky builders could have painted them in situ in the manner we observe them there today. Bonkers, I know).

However, moving on. What, I find myself asking, could have moved you to even remotely consider accepting Creighton's IN SITU argument? To feel so compelled to have to come up with your ludicrous 'third option' almost smacks of desperation. So why?

I can only think that there must be something else Creighton has written in his new book, something you are quietly ignoring and certainly not prepared to share with your readers. It rather seems to me that in putting forward your 'third option' you are merely laying the groundwork to pre-empt and counter a wider acceptance of Creighton's in situ argument and, as such, feel conpelled to find an alternative option to the in situ argument Creighton makes. And you do this by simply putting forward, as a possibility, that the builders were wacky and painted the in situ marks upside down etc. Job done - well, sort of.

But you know, Jason - given your previous form in misrepresenting, trivialising and withholding important evidence from your reviews of Creighton's work, it would not surprise me in the least to learn that you have read something in Creighton's new book that really does make his IN SITU argument highly compelling. That is why you feel you probably have to lay the groundwork here for an alternative in situ 'third option' (however ridiculous that option may be).

I wonder Jason - what could it be? What is it that Creighton has presented in his new book that broght you to even consider his IN SITU argument?

Oh and before I sally away, riddle me this Jason - these upside down marks your wacky builders made in situ, can you explain to your readers why a builder would start painting a sideways cartouche onto a wall block with only half a cubit before he ran out of wall space? I can understand why a hoaxer might do this - to make it appear as though the cartouche continues (hidden) behind the tightly adjoining floor block. But I can't quite fathom why a builder - even a wacky one - might do this? I'm confident though that you'll be able to explain that to us all. Look forward to it.

PS - The Stower chappy seems a little bit "invested", doesn't he?

Reply

Tom

9/30/2016 02:07:37 am

Do leave off, you have flogged this to death and gained as much on line publicity as you ever will and have now become a become a bore.

Reply

Only Me

9/30/2016 03:31:46 am

"something in Creighton's new book that really does make his IN SITU argument highly compelling"

*Five minutes of laughter later*

I'm sorry. What in the world would make his argument "highly compelling"? On one hand, you call Jason's alternative suggestion the Egyptian workers themselves placed the quarry marks in situ wacky, bonkers, ludicrous and a ridiculous notion. On the other hand, when Creighton argues Vyse placed the marks in situ, you call it "highly compelling".

Are you brain damaged? It's the same damn argument, just different suspects!

By the way, I hope we all don't have to wait too much longer for those hieratic texts Creighton claims will prove Vyse pulled the biggest troll in history.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/30/2016 03:47:42 am

"I'm sorry. What in the world would make his argument "highly compelling"?"

Ask Jason. He's read the book - lol. He's the one who feels compelled to counter Creighton's argument with nonsense.

"Are you brain damaged? It's the same damn argument, just different suspects!"

lololololol - if I didn't know better, I'd take you for a comedian.

Clue: the bit I wrote about "half a cubit of space" tells you precisely why Jason's option is just desperate bunk. The ancient builders would never have written marks in situ in the manner presented. They would have been written correct way up, the very same way Egyptologists tell us they would have been written had they been written at the quarry. Of course, that Jason cannot present any further evidence of his madcap scheme further proves he's talking rubbish and doesn't understand Egyptian writing.

And Jason ought to know that he who knows all the answers has not been asked all the questions.

Peter, are you intentionally being daft? I did not "counter" Creighton with an "argument" but offered a hypothetical to demonstrate that Creighton had not considered alternative explanations to his own favored (obsessive) point. It was not a serious proposal, but since you ask, what would have stopped, say, the Friends of Khufu from faking the marks to make it look like they quarried the blocks so that when the foreman came through to tally up who gets the extra ration of beer they'd be given credit? Note: This isn't a formal argument, but it would explain all of Creighton's claims about the quarry marks without Col. Vyse, which was my point: He just didn't prove his case.

Martin Stower

9/30/2016 10:56:58 am

Ye coods nae resist it, coods ye, laddie. ? A word to the wise: this is what gives you away. The more words you waste, the more your style shows through.

As I told your spiritual twin on GHMB, I’ve put the work in on the topic, whereas you (here) purport to be merely a concerned reader, with a high (but curiously selective) regard for the truth, who just so happens to identify strongly with the minute detail of Scott Creighton’s arguments. Carry on like this and you’ll be ousting “LonelyAngel” as his Number One Fan!

I notice that you don’t even try to counter what I say on the issue.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/30/2016 09:04:15 am

"He just didn't prove his case."

Indeed. And from having read the chapter in his first book, I agree (as I said to you before). But he doesn't HAVE to prove the case and I don't think that is what he is doing. All he has done (is doing) is to provide sufficiently compelling evidence to question the mainstream narrative that the chamber marks were painted onto the blocks (upright) at the quarries. He presents evidence that strongly suggests (to me at least) that the marks on those blocks were painted onto the blocks IN SITU. From what I have read thus far, I personally think he does a very good job in arguing that premise and I look forward to reading more.

"what would have stopped, say, the Friends of Khufu from faking the marks to make it look like they quarried the blocks so that when the foreman came through to tally up who gets the extra ration of beer they'd be given credit?"

Well, you have me at a disadvantage here because I have not (yet) fully read Creighton's new book so I do not know of any of the other evidence he may have presented in support of his view (other than what you presented in your 'review').

But ask yourself - in your hypothetical scenario (which totally flies in the face of Egyptology's own argument of the marks being painted upright at the quarries), why would the builders paint their name onto in situ blocks upside down, sideways etc? Why? How exactly would writing the gang name upside down on an in situ block benefit the builder? It would surely be easier for the builder to write his the name right way up for the foreman to see (makes it easier for the foreman to check too). And why would they write just a small fragment of their gang name onto an in situ block (which could then possibly be mistaken as belonging to another gang) as though it continues beyond an adjoining block? They would have to make their gang name clear and unambiguous on each block each and every time to ensure they were credited with that block to get the extra beer. And that is not what we see. Once again, Jason, simple logic escapes you.

There is simply no benefit for the builders in doing any of this to get the extra beer. All they need do is simply paint their names onto the in situ blocks in the easiest way i.e. upright and this is easier also for the foreman to then come along and check.

Over and above which, your scenario completely overlooks the evidence from Vyse's diary and Hill's drawings. According to Creighton, in his diary Vyse copied the Khufu cartouche (supposedly) from the chamber with the circle devoid of the triple-line in it on TWO occasions. Finally he draws it correctly WITH the triple line in the circle. Why did Vyse get this detail wrong TWICE? You have to keep in mind that Vyse minutely examined this chamber and observes and copies the much smaller detail of the two dots under the snake sign. How can you rationally explain Vyse missing this TWICE? And why does Vyse then mark these circles with an 'X' (wrong)? Why does he then cross-reference his correction? Why didn't he copy the thing correctly into his diary first time or even the second time?

And why does Vyse draw the Khufu cartouche horizontally THREE times in his diary? Creighton explains that Vyse copies other chamber marks that are upside down correctly into his diary. He copies other things into his diary with the correct orientation as one would actually observe them. So why not the Khufu cartouche? Why ‘copy’ that wrong THREE times? Your hypothetical scenario above simply cannot address or resolve the problems with this particular evidence in Creighton's book.

And then there is Hill's drawings. He correctly presents the orientations of 22 of the 24 drawings (that Creighton could cross-check). Every one correct EXCEPT the Khufu name. He presents these with the same WRONG orientation as Vyse does in his diary. Again, your hypothetical scenario above simply cannot address or resolve the problems with this particular evidence in Creighton's book.

You are merely grasping at straws with this utterly unreasonable and thoroughly spurious line of argumentation, Jason and I am very confident you would find little support for it among Egyptologists. None in fact.

One again, the purpose of the hypothetical eludes you. It is not to make a serious argument for Egyptian fabricators but to expose a weakness in Creighton's argument: He offers no criteria whereby to distinguish between a hoax perpetrated by Vyse and one perpetrated in ancient times. This is not an endorsement of the hoax theory, either, in case you'd like to jump to that conclusion. The point, if I must be so blunt as to give it again, is that Creighton has not considered enough alternative explanations to suggest that his is reasonable. It isn't my job to do this for him; he needs to show that he did the work.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/30/2016 10:37:39 am

Jason - it is simple. Creighton has uncovered and scrutinised various items of evidence (most of which no one, as far as I know, has ever before looked at) and found that they suggest marks were painted into those chambers with the blocks IN SITU. It is unlikely in the extreme that the ancient builders would have placed the marks onto the blocks while in situ and most certainly NOT in situ upside down, sideways etc. To suggest that as a plausible scenario is just plain stupid on so many levels, even as a hypothetical.

So, Jason, how then do you REASONABLY explain Creighton's evidence? (I note you simply body swerved all the points I raised above). How do you explain it?

Creighton contends that the evidence can be reasonably explained by accepting the original contention of Sitchin (though absolutely not for the same reasons Sitchin himself proposed) that the marks were faked by Vyse and his two chums.

If you can propose any other alternative BUT REASONABLE explanation for the evidence Creighton has uncovered then, of course, by all means do so. But even if you can do that, it still does not refute Creighton's contention. Creighton's explanation will still remain valid (even if it is unacceptable to some). To completely refute Creighton's contention then you will need to actually gather your own evidence to prove those marks are authentic i.e. painted onto the blocks at the quarries as orthodoxy has originally claimed.

In summary - Creighton's evidence raises many significant questions over the orthodox narrative for these marks. In the absence of strong evidence from orthodoxy to support their contention that the marks are authentic then Creighton has made the better case. You might not AGREE with that but it is a matter of evidential FACT. He's written a whole book presenting various pieces of evidence to support his view. What has mainstream produced by way of actual evidence to support its contention? Nothing. The authenticity of these marks are simply accepted orthodox dogma; authentic on the word of an electoral fraudster.

Creighton has presented a solid and significant evidence-based challenge. And, actually, anyone who seeks historical truth should applaud him for that. I suppose though, if mainstream Egyptology has become your 'faith' then I rather doubt that will happen any time soon.

I think we're probably done here now, Jason, unless you are happy to go round and round in circles?

Reply

Martin Stower

9/30/2016 11:06:20 am

Time I think to end the polite pretence that “Peter Robertson” is anything other than the sock puppet identity of a disgruntled author.

Reply

Tom

9/30/2016 11:22:01 am

Agreed, perhaps others might also care to add their support.

An Over-Educated Grunt

9/30/2016 11:48:56 am

Agreed. Get the rail and the tar and feathers.

Only Me

9/30/2016 12:17:36 pm

Okay, Pete, since you obviously ARE brain damaged, let me show you how stupid your argument has become.

"It is unlikely in the extreme that the ancient builders would have placed the marks onto the blocks while in situ and most certainly NOT in situ upside down, sideways etc. To suggest that as a plausible scenario is just plain stupid on so many levels, even as a hypothetical."

You argue is, "No way the Egyptian workers placed the quarry marks."

"Creighton has uncovered and scrutinised various items of evidence (most of which no one, as far as I know, has ever before looked at) and found that they suggest marks were painted into those chambers with the blocks IN SITU."

You're arguing here that Creighton's claim Vyse placed the marks is not only "highly compelling", but BECAUSE it's Creighton making the claim, the scenario you just said was "unlikely in the extreme" and "just plain stupid" is now plausible.

It is the same argument, only the actors have changed! Just because one version is hypothetical is irrelevant. It's the same scenario being described!

For someone so concerned with misrepresentation and untruths, you don't seem to have any compunction about twisting the story to suit your needs.

Reply

Peter Robertson

9/30/2016 12:47:45 pm

Seriously. You really, really, really do not 'get' what is going on here. You just don't. All you have done with your little rant there is demosntrate your complete ignorance about what the debate here is actually about. Perhaps it would help if you had actually read Creighton's book. It is plainly evident that you haven't.

Hey, but I am not one to get in the way of someone's personal rant. The floor is yours. Rant away - lol.

Only Me

9/30/2016 01:38:35 pm

No, Pete. YOU are the one who doesn't get it. There is no debate because you are saying Creighton's claim should be taken seriously while saying a hypothetical alternative to that claim must be dismissed. Both claims are describing the EXACT SAME SCENARIO, but hey, don't let me stand in the way of your disingenuousness.

You demand evidence from Egyptologists and Jason to support their views, but remain noticeably silent about demanding that "cache of authentic, old hieratic texts" Creighton says Vyse referenced to commit a hoax.

I clearly have a firm grasp of what this debate is about. By all means, do continue being Creighton's sycophant.

Peter Robertson

9/30/2016 02:46:14 pm

@ Only Me

"being Creighton's sycophant"

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Said without a hint of irony!!! Well done.

Hey Jason, I think the little sweetie loves yer!

Reply

Martin Stower

9/30/2016 03:16:21 pm

See what I mean.

Where did the serious and principled protester go?

Going to try and get back in character and give us one of your lectures on honesty and truthfulness?

Reply

Only Me

9/30/2016 03:35:53 pm

There isn't any irony, Pete. I'm pointing out the severe flaws of your logic. Remember, there's a whole spate of comments above that belong to you. All of them illustrate how invested you are in defending Creighton's claim, while ignoring the fact his claim has no evidence that even rises to the level of circumstantial.

Oddly enough, given his recent verbosity in support of Creighton and his familiarity with so ephemeral a remark, there is no sign of a Peter Robertson having participated in the discussion.

Reply

E H Andreasson

10/2/2016 07:32:44 am

Lurker here for long years. First post. Enjoy your work Mr Colavito.

Crighton you cannot expect to follow every possible. May be he has thought these but gives only what he thinks is the more true solution with the evidence he finds. Possibles infinitum. He cannot do that. I think you expect to much from the author to give more options.

It's not about considering every possibility, however absurd, but rather about considering obvious objections and to consider ways that the hypothesis can be falsified. As Creighton sets it up, there is no way to prove the idea wrong (because it's claims are unprovable), which means that there is also no reason to believe that it is right.

Reply

Peter Robertson

10/2/2016 07:01:37 pm

"As Creighton sets it up, there is no way to prove the idea wrong (because it's claims are unprovable), which means that there is also no reason to believe that it is right."

Except that Creighton COULD be right, Jason. Don't forget to mention that.

As for his claims being "unprovable". Well, Jason, all that needs done in that regard is for orthodoxy to prove its own claim (if it can) that the marks in the chambers are authentic; it is done by orthodoxy providing better evidence to support its case than Creighton provides to support his case. Then Creighton's argument is disproved.

Unless, of course, you believe orthodoxy is above such requirements as having to actually PROVE its own claims (which, incidentally, they accept the authenticity of the marks based solely on the word of a corrupt fraudster politician)?

So, if torthodoxy has good hard evidence that the marks in these chambers are genuine then I, for one, would like to see it and compare and contrast with the evidence Creighton presents. Not too much to ask for, is it?

Reply

Martin Stower

10/2/2016 10:01:42 pm

Give it up, Scott, you’re fooling no one.

Had you a serious case, you wouldn’t be repeating tired old rubbish like “they accept the authenticity of the marks based solely on the word of a corrupt fraudster politician”—and were you thinking it through, you would not say something like this and then ask us to believe things solely on the word of Dominique Görlitz.

Reply

Peter Robertson

10/3/2016 03:43:42 am

"Give it up, Scott, you’re fooling no one."

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

So when you read Creighton's work and understand the argument he is making it turns you into Creighton?

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

I have been assimilated. I am Borg.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Peter Robertson

10/3/2016 04:54:54 am

Give it up, Martin, you are fooling no one.

You are the Martin Stower with severe anger issues, aren't you? Especially towards females where you fantasize about punching glasses into their faces. And most especially southern belles who out you as a "psycho". You also live in the southeast of England.

So I wonder, could this Martin Stower (below) with sick attitudes towards women be you?

And if anyone wants the story which Googling my name brings up, it’s here:

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/sheerness/news/pervert-jailed-a95340/

For those with a grasp of geography (unlike Creighton, who mixes up California with Dixie), I’ve never even been to the Isle of Sheppey, let alone lived there. Nor do I live in the southeast of England. A lesson on the quality of his “research” will be evident.

No, laddie, it’s not me.

Whence this silly comparison with sharing a name? Is “Peter Robertson” “Scott Creighton”? The names, I mean. No, Scott, it’s about your every verbal tic telling us who you are. No wonder your books are such rubbish, if this is how you think. More to point (given your recent guff) would be: PROVE that you’re Peter Robertson.

What I said to Audrey (of the serial smears) was this:

“If you behaved like this in public, someone would end up punching a glass into your face.”

Apparently it was bad of me to say this to someone who tried to start a rumour of my being a convicted paedophile offender—you know, the kind of rumour which could get someone killed, which some readers may allow to affect their judgement of “Peter Robertson”, whoever he may be.

Readers may decided for themselves who’s been “outed” here.

Reply

Martin Stower

10/3/2016 07:28:47 am

PS I wonder what took him from LOLOLOLOLOL at 0343 to a paedophilia smear at 0454?

A few wee drams?

Issues with anger and alcohol, I think.

Reply

Peter Robertson

10/3/2016 07:49:34 am

Still not twigged yet Martin? You're slipping. But do keep going. I'm sure you''ll get there (stop sniggering at the back).

I AM who I say I am. Go and look. "PROPERLY" (hint).

LOLOLOL:!!

Martin stower

10/3/2016 08:10:36 am

Go and look properly yourself.

In the spirit of your demands above, PROVE that you’re Peter Robertson. PROVE that “Peter Robertson” is authentic.

By the standards you’ve tried to foist on us above, I’ve raised a reasonable doubt about you identity and I’m fully entitled to express it—and even to put it into a book and charge money for it!

Get it?

On a related point, I asked a question which you appear to have overlooked. I reproduce it here: